/lit/ - Literature

say what you want

But I enjoyed Fight Club as movie more than the novel

except the last parts of it

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest

>>3513101

Agreed. The novel was preachy as fuck.

Kubrick's Shining was good.

Lord of the Rings. Spielberg or whoever the director was stayed true to Tolkien.

>>3513101
Liked them both equally
>>3513106
Very good film but the book is far better

>>3513101

>say what you want

...Everyone says the movie is better, even Palahniuk himself.

>>3513112

It was a terrible adaptation.

It was a stellar film.

A faithful adaptation of The Shining would have been dog-piss.

>>3513120
That was Peter Jackson and I agree, he did a great job.

Also, Trainspotting wasn't too bad.

I, Robot

>>3513118

Dunno, /tv/ claims it's pleb-tier, I expected to receive hate.

I'm not saying it's a masterpiece, but I really enjoyed it - all the little things, scenography and Helena Bonham Carter

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
A Clockwork Orange
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
Blade Runner
Gankutsuou (deal with it)

Those are a few off the top of my head.

Streetcar and Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf

>>3513123

There is a more faithful adaptation of Shining, TV series I think, recommended by King himself, but the fact that you haven't heard about it speaks volumes.

i think jarhead is.
it very much catches the feel of the book.

the book has more substance though.

>>3513140
Also, this is the best.

For my money, True Grit (2010 version, I haven't seen the first movie) was satisfactory

the perfume

>>3513148
Is that the Colin Firth/ Hugh Grant one?
If we're talking TV series, I'm gonna say Tess. The book was shit, but Gemma Arterton did a stellar job.

>>3513143

No, I know about it.

I just don't tend to remember it, I actually forgot about it.

It was absolutely terrible.

It was Langloliers-tier

Apocalypse Now is a stunning movie. I dunno if it's particularly faithful, since a lot of the thematic concerns of Heart of Darkness were very specific to the period which it inhabited.

>>3513134
/tv/ is pleb-tier to the max, doesn't know shit about shit.

>>3513168
as far as i know it's just loosely based on it and does not try to be true to the heart of darkness(which is being quoted a lot in movies and videogames and even music)

Godfather, obviously.

>>3513157
Colin Firth. Don't think Hugh Grant is in it. But yes, widely considered one of the best adaptations there is and for good reason. Definitely the best Austen adaptation.

Hmm might give Tess of the d'Urbervilles a look since you've recommended it.

>>3513208

>Drive is better than Fight Club!!!! Fucking nerd! xDD
>MUH WAIFUS!

/tv/ is a hellhole, Moot needs to start over and make /cin/

>>3513215
That may not be such a bad idea. I could encourage a certain pretentiousness or elitism ala /lit/, but I think that would be a very small price to pay.

>>3513230
It could encourage*

>>3513232
No, you meant yourself. I have consulted Dr. Freud on the matter.

>>3513215
I'd say that Drive probably is better than Fight Club. Drive was a damn good film, and it was also an adaptation of a novel, so I suppose it's relevant to this thread.

Not that I disagree with what you're saying. /tv/ is shit.

no country for old men.

akira, for a 2 hour movie.

the manga is actually a lot longer.

>asking /lit/ about films

embarrassing thread

>>3513275
yeah because it is like totally impossible to lurk more than one board

>>3513270
Hmm if we're talking manga then certainly Ghost in the Shell deserves a mention.

Also Old Boy.

>>3513093
Children of Men is a pretty good film adaptation of a mediocre to bad book.

>>3513270
Akira wasn't a good adaption though, they cut a lot out and thus the movie made absolutely no sense at all.

Apart from the stunning visuals/extremely high quality animation it's not really worth watching.

>>3513236
Well, shit.

The Godfather, obviously. A masterpiece of a movie, straight out of an average pulp novel.

>>3513321
>they cut a lot out

because the source material is a lot longer.
they took the first half from the first manga and then tried to make a complete story out of it.
for that it wasnt that bad.

i still think the magna is a lot better though.
(and a million times more crazy)

>>3513134

Yeah, as far as the filmmaking goes Fight Club is pretty good. Also Norton is great, as always.

But the overall message of the film has really gotten very dated with the years. Also it's really preachy and tries to shock too much for its own sake, but that's Palahniuk, not the film.

Adaptation. is a pretty good adaptation.

The fight club: Way better than the book.
PS. The book is shit.

A History of Violence (2005) was pretty good, didn't follow much the graphic novel (which was ok for me).

>>3513408
Speaking of graphic novels, is Road to Perdition (the film) any good? I quite liked the graphic novel.

Reminded me of another good adaptation - The Maltese Falcon. God Humphrey Bogart is so cool.

Everything Kubrick made from 2001 on.

I also thought Short Cuts did an admirable job capturing Carver's tone and effect, the insanity and moral decay of modern society.

>>3513336
Yeah but I mean even out of the parts they did adapt they cut a lot out.

Plus in the manga the best part is after the city is destroyed, which is right where the movie ends.

>>3513275

>asking /tv/ about films

Embarrassing attempt

Everything has better knowledge and taste in films than you putrid disgusting fucks, even /v/.

Death in Venice

>>3513591
Hey, now; /v/ isn't that much better than /tv/. Both are pretty dismal, however.

The Rules of Attraction

It nails the atmosphere for the most part, but it kind of glosses over some of the more important character moments (like in the book Victor spends the entire semester in Europe and then comes back and says that it wasn't really that great, and most of Sean's and Paul's characters as a whole) to make some commentary on the whole American Pie style sex comedies that came out at that time.

>>3513591
If you like pleb shit like Fight Club then you are not a Patrician, no matter how much soviet literature you read

Cruel Intentions is straight up one of my favorite movies as is Trainspotting which is a hundred times better than the mediocre book.

Jurassic Park movie was almost better, I mean at least Malcolm was actually kind of cool in the movie instead of a really annoying, cheap, and above all pretentious author insert.

Also the Coen Brothers' True Grit was incredible, and the book was really good too.

People seem to like Bram Stoker's Dracula but the book was a lot better imo.

>>3513768
Fight Club has some great ideas behind it dog. only saw movie tho.

American Psycho

>/lit/ pretending they have better taste in film than /tv/ while masturbating over fedora-core shit

>>3513784
>/tv/ pretending it has good taste, overall

It seriously does not; and I would know: I browsed it for roughly 2 years. The amount of people who actually like great film is much lower than those who constantly spam and post on there.

>>3513773
It really doesn't. Just a bunch of pseudo-bad-ass, cough syrup darkness, half-baked ideas specifically tailored for angsty middle schoolers or their intellectual equivalent.

Brad Pitt: You know why they give you oxygen masks right when a plane is about to go down? To keep you calm. And docile. Like cow's waiting for the slaughter.

No, Brad Pitt. That's not why at all. It's because if there's a loss of cabin pressure, you'll need some real mother fucking oxygen to breathe. No conspiracy, just basic fucking safety procedures.

>>3513787
Well yeah, /tv/ is a million times worse than /lit/

But 99% of the movies listed in this thread are the film equivilant of To Kill a Mockingbird

>>3513784

>/tv/ pretending they have taste
>/tv/ pretending they aren't clinically brain-dead

Go back in your hole.

>>3513768
This is why /tv/ will ever not be shit. You think that good films liked by the masses are automatically pleb shit and therefore bad. You think that popular must equal bad in all cases. /lit/ has a similar problem, only most people with taste know how to enjoy other people reading good books.

On /tv/, you are either an actual pleb, or you hate plebs so much you become one by your own blinding anger.

>>3513802
Duly noted.

>>3513120
>characters Tolkien never put in
>total disrespect for the English language
>beauty and seriousness of the work eviscerated
>reduced to an action movie for 15-25 year olds
>commercialization reducing the aesthetic and philosophical impact of the creation to nothing

>staying true to Tolkien

>>3513862

>taste
>death grips

you are the epitome of malleable herdmentality shit taste fuck off back to /mu/ take /tv/ with you

>>3514008
O-okay.

>>3514008

No fuck off, I'm in your area.

I am going to get a huge amount of shit for this, but Lord of the Rings. If a movie can be more literary than the books, you know it's doing it right.

>>3513784

>/lit/ pretending they have better taste in film

On average they do.

You didn't specify it had to be film adaptions.

Tales of Arabian Nights, the board game, is a very creative take on the original tales.

The Road to Canterbury, the board game, incorporates a lot of interesting mechanics with its take on the Pardoner's tale.

Blade Runner and Through a Scanner Darkly come to mind.

>>3514273
but for films, Marketa Lazarova, Kytice, Valerie and Her Week of Wonders, Kwaidan, Sansho the Bailiff, The Tenant, Heart of a Dog, Ugetsu, Woman in the Dunes, Face of Another, Closely Watched Trains, The Cremator and The Saragossa Manuscript were great adaptions imo.

>>3514280
oh and Blind Beast, it actually was a significant improvement upon the book even.

>>3513265
Possibly the greatest Hollywood adaptation in recent memory. It's pretty much page for page accurate, which usually never works. But the Coens make it work.

>>3513393
Very funny, pal.
It's a terrible adaptation, that's the joke.

>>3514292

If anyone could make Blood Meridian work it'd be the Coens. But problems honoring all the gratuitous violence aside you'd never find anyone who'd be able to do a worthy rendition of the Judge.

>>3514292
>>3514332
>tfw James fucking Franco is directing the Child of God adaptation and not someone whose head isn't so far up his own ass that he's tonguing the back of his throat

>>3514340
>>3514332
I heard Franco shot some test footage for Blood Meridian but it got rejected, which is a relief. The guy has been fighting to adapt it for a while now. I didn't know baout Child of God, but I see he managed to get his hands on Faulkner's As I Lay Dying too. I really hope he goes no further. A seasoned veteran should be adapting all these classics.

>>3514364
jesus f christ
what a scumfuck

>>3513143
faithful adaptation and Kings approval, yes.

But that made for TV movie is absolute dog shit. The dude from fucking "Wings" playing Jack's role? Not on my watch. Never understood why King preferred that one over Kubrick's? Stephen King is just too edgy for me I guess.

>>3514387
If you haven't noticed, King is an absolute retard half of the time. The other half of the time he's a good storyteller, and only slightly retarded.

2011 Great Expectations
Gillian Anderson is meh
But Ray Winstone is one BAUS Magwitch

>>3514364
Can you believe Franco teaches a university class on adapting books into film?
This is the guy who stars in stoner comedies and looks permanently high.

>>3513112

The Shining, as a book, was why I hate Stephen King. EVERY character that has any modicum of gravitas (presence) needs to be redeemed.

It would have been a better book if my man JT didn't transition from a gibbering ghoul into a pennant in the span of 2 seconds. It also would have been a better book if the epilogue wasn't gay as fuck, and if he wasn't writing a sequel.

King is a master of character study and detail, though.

>>3513372

Would you say the acts that ostensibly elicit shock and disgust from the reader becomes an exercise in perseveration throughout the book?

>>3513792

You missed the point of the movie, even though you just described a key instance in which it's exposed: Fincher and Chuck left it up to the audience to discern the weaknesses in Tyler's half-truths, as that allows the audience to realize the deconstruction of society would bring about more suffering than following the rules would.

The entire point is the illusion offered by idealism, and how it becomes a forlorn hope quickly enough.

>>3514410
It's actually one of the better Stephen King novels. It's just deeply flawed.

Too much exposition, it could have been a 100 page novella and just as effective with a more talented writer. Too much wacky supernatural nonsense that pulls you out of the novel. Kubrick's had that too, but it was done a lot more subtly.

Also, fucking hedge animal monsters. Those are supposed to be scary?

>>3514419

They would've been scarier if it turned out they never actually moved, but there was some channeling of an insidious nature that played mindgames with Jack and his kid (whose name I'm at a loss for); it would've added to the mystique of the hotel's secrets. As always, it's about the suspense and buildup, not the execution, when it comes to horror and mystery.

I didn't mind the exposition, as it gave King ample room to fill out his characters, but I do agree it could have been shorter. However, I strongly believe King has a compulsive need to be fastidious with the intricacies of his works.

He needs to subscribe to the Joyce/Fitzgerald/Hemingway schools of thought: elegant minimalism.

>>3514427
There's a difference between filling out your characters and doing what King does. He does lay out his details so much as bash you over the head with them. King wants you to know that Jack Torrence is an alcoholic, so he spends 30 pages talking about how he's an alcoholic. Then he brings it up again. And again. And again, from some other character's perspective. It's hard to miss much.

Which I guess is the point for something that's supposed to be a light read, but still.

Drive was better than Drive
The ending of the Watchmen made more sense. The comic even foreshadowed the movie ending but didn't use it.
The Shining, obviously.
2001, if that counts
TWBB > Oil!

>>3514440

I think we're on the same page, if not the same paragraph. The only difference is it rankled you a bit more.

However, I have to say that King has refined his propensity to drivel over the years. Have you read 11/22/63? He's gotten much better at conveying subtleties and quickening his general pacing.

For what it's worth, Kubrick on screen is what King wishes he could be on a page; the way he implicated Jack sexually abusing his kid was masterful. I know it was something missed by most of the audience.

>>3514453
I have a copy that's been on my self for a while, might pick it up soon. It's interesting that you say that though, because I've usually heard that he's gotten worse. What with him being Stephen King and scaring off all the editors.

And yes, Kubrick is brilliant. Almost all of the details that King spends hundreds of pages explaining can be seen in the movie if you pay close enough attention.

>>3514464

It's a very solid read, I would recommend it. Again, King's idealistic outlook on the world, even in the face of tragedy, is his biggest undoing, but he ties it up neatly in "11/23/62."

I haven't read any of his other recent works. His strongest opus, to me, will always be "It."

>>3514471
I didn't like It. Possibly because I read the whole thing in less than two weeks. It had a strong beginning and then it just kinda tapered off. I have mostly good memories about the story though, strangely enough.

I think something like Carrie is one of his least bullshitty novels. It's the one that I have the least complaints about at least. The Stand (the original, edited version at least) is also very good at least until the half way point.

>>3514484

You have good memories because the characters are fully fleshed out and resonant; the situations, memorable (duh).

I actually haven't read Carrie - is it King's version of torture porn? Does he come across as a misogynist?

>>3514489
Nah, I just think his stories are better as ideas than on paper.

For it to be torture porn-y, I think it would have to revel in the violence, whereas this kind of does the opposite, as weird as it sounds. King is actually extremely sympathetic towards his protagonist, and the characterization is surprisingly complex. I didn't feel it was misogynistic, really not sure what gave you that idea.

>>3514504

As far as the inquiry pertaining to misogyny: just a question. I'll be reading "Carrie" with a blank slate - no expectations.

And yeah, his stories are better as ideas, but that's the point of great writing, is it not? Words form prototypes, prototypes form structures, structures form ideas. King, even with all his faults, at least imparts that much.

>>3513093
>The Shawshank Redemption
Is great but fairly distant from the novella. It's made overly sentimental and PC by making the Andy's buddy black and making the warden something out of a nazi death camp. It was dumbed down for mainstream audiences. Green mile was a much better adaptation IMO, no matter what imdb says.

>>3513143
I love King's books but he doesn't know a damn thing about TV or movies. the best adaptations of his work are the ones where he isn't involved.

>>3514587
>dumbing stephen king down for mainstream audiences

>>3514524
Have you read any of his other novels? I found Carrie to be the weakest of anything I've read by him so far.

>>3514587

>dumbing stephen king down for mainstream audiences

>Morgan Freeman
>Some black guy

>>3513215
>Moot needs to start over and make /cin/
I agree but that has as much chance as /pc/

>>3514593
do you have any conception of how dumb the mainstream theater audience is?

>>3514598
I like Morgan Freeman. That's why I hate to see him get "the nice black man" roles. that's what he was in shawshank, his character in the novella is much more.

>>3514615
I'd wager about as dumb as the mainstream book audience.

>>3514279
>Through a Scanner Darkly

it's just "a scanner darkly":
but yeah the movie is good, i read half of the book too.

Hey, /lit/.

Why are you only talking about Stephen King and /tv/ ITT?

Stephen King is unquestionably the greatest author of the modern age, but surely out of the multitude of film adaptations there are different things to discuss?

Also, /lit/ may have been spawned from /tv/, but is that really relevant anymore? I realise this is a discussion about adaptations and so the Father of /lit/ has some minor relevance, but does it deserve all the space it's getting ITT?

Here are some excellent posts that went unaddressed, if you'd like a starting point to improve the quality of this thread:
>>3513141
>>3513145
>>3513154
>>3513217
>>3513317
>>3513334
>>3513616
>>3513771
>>3514398

>>3514619
I dunno, I don't think Morgan Freeman would work in a "scary/badass black man" role (i.e. most anything that Samuel L. Jackson is in).

>>3514625
Posting the title of a movie and nothing else qualifies a post as excellent now? Shit.

>>3514625
Stephen king kicks ass, stop bein a nazi.

>>3513393
This is on tonight in the UK. Worth watching?

>>3513792

You completely missed the point.


Fight Club is about the fall of modern man and the constant feeling of unfulfillment that haunts men, because everything is sterile and safe, there are no tests of virtue or strength, there are no ideas worth devoting your life for.

Unlike women, who seek their life's fullfilment in real, personal matters, men need abstract ideas of grandeur and situations where they could sacrifice themselves for something far bigger than they are individually.